Re: the "cluster" system call (and file system type)

[<irbis@orcero.org>]

 Helo, David!

> >  Better focused, something like a /proc filesystem. :-)
>
> Part of the objection to including mosix as-is into the kernel
> is all the mucking it does in /proc.  This point was made
> early on by very possibly Alan himself.   So by mounting

 Well, if this is the only one problem, let it be in "/cluster". ;-)

 I thought that it would be the best putting all the kernel control stuff
on "/proc". Or would it be better "/scsi", "/net", "/ipv4", "/ipv6",
"/pcmcia" and so on?

> and there is also very nice independence -- you could have one
> machine join two completely different clusters by mounting them
> on two points, and the distinction is clean.

 All the subsystems lay on "/proc". I can not understand why clusters
subsistems should be different. I thing that the best is finnaly
integrating clustering into the kernel, and that Linux became a
cluster-capable OS. If kernel people ask to the comunity, sure they find
lots of help. Yes, the 2.5 would be REALLY unstable, but we could have
amazing features for databases, servers, and workstations.

> it's non-intrusive to the user, but it is very intrusive to the kernel.


 If we want a full clustering suport, we will have to touch LOTS of
things on the kernel. It is not so easy as putting 3 beowulf patches, HA
patches and it's all, folks.

> You'd need an awfully robust cluster system to be able to have
> no configuration file at all!  I placed the configuration file
> in the device-special slot in mount syntax.  That would make
> mounting a mosix-1.0 emulator from fstab look something like:
>
> /etc/mosix.map /proc/mosix cluster mosix 0 0

 You can configure via "/proc", as other subsystems.

> So to make the cluster file system type "cluster" all the
> options would get specified with -o switches.  -o HP or -o HA
> might turn on whole families of options.


 This is a better idea than mine, some as mounting the "/proc/cluster"
filesystem with HP or HA options.

> >  Well, this already exists (PVM), and work fine. Anyway, PVM has its own
> > leaks, please share with us the fresh ideas that you were going to use on
> > your user-mode system.
>
> I meant a channel system where node-node communication is established
> with a single stream connection that persists, and all other communication
> between those two nodes is multiplexed over that channel.

 Like CPLAN portals?

 Yours:

David

---------------------------
     irbis@orcero.org
http://www.orcero.org/irbis
---------------------------




Linux-cluster: generic cluster infrastructure for Linux
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-cluster/